I highly doubt that gun control groups want current laws to be enforced. It might just result in some degree of improvement - and that would work against their registration/confiscation goals!

The most any gun law can do is force criminals into the underground illegal market. This could be done with a few minor adjustments to current law:

1) Aggressively prosecute all criminals who lie on 4473 forms and make sure the are sentenced to prison. Notify local authorities so they can bring state charges and/or violate their parole or probation.

2) Prosecute all straw purchasers and make prison time mandatory. These people all have clean records, therefore the threat of prison should have some effect.

3) Make sure that all states and agencies report convictions and committals to NICS. Failure to do so should result in the loss of federal funds.

4) Open the NICS system to private sellers by requiring all FFLs to conduct checks of buyers in private sales for a reasonable set fee. LET ME BE CLEAR - I AM TALKING ABOUT OPTIONAL CHECKS, NOT REQUIRING CHECKS ON ALL OR EVEN SOME PRIVATE SALES!!! Most of us do not want to sell to a prohibited person. There are lot's of ways we can do this. We may know the person well enough and long enough to be sure that they are not a felon or otherwise prohibited. They might be able to show us a C&R license, a CCW permit, or a badge. Optional access to the NICS system would simply be one more resource that we could optionally choose to use. BATFE already publishes a manual on how dealers may do this, so it would be nothing new.

None of the above would stop criminals from getting guns. It will make it more difficult - how much more difficult is unknown. However, if BATFE actually does their job and focuses upon illegal sales, the above would likely do as much as any of the gun grabbers draconian proposals.

Even if it should pass, there are 8 States and D.C. where your gun and/or ammo will still be illegal to carry.
Magazine restrictions (10 or 15 rounds), no JHP in New Jersey, only 307 legal pistols in California and fewer revolvers on the handgun roster.

And the Democrats in South Carolina stalled the Open Carry permitless Concealed Carry for another year because they were arguing over raising the Gas Tax. We.ve been trying for 5 YEARS now and still can't get it past the Democrats.

While I agree with your definition, I think you are missing something in this case.

The scientists are essentially arguing about the definition of continent. Such a definition is not based on observation, experiment or hypothesis - it is meta-science, not science, and it is necessary.

I think that the climate charade has led people to believe that all of science is infected with this "consensus determines scientific results" nonsense. But, that is still just a political argument by climatistas. The work they do is not determined by consensus, but by more classical scientific means - hypotheses and experiment. I know a bunch of these folks, and while I think their reliance on climate models is deeply flawed, they otherwise are acting like scientists.

Also, some science is immune to a lot of experiment - it is more observational. Some of geology falls into this - nobody creates a continent by experiment. But, they can create a hypothesis, which is then tested against known facts and facts yet to be determined.

A good example of this is evolution. Most of the science of evolution is a result of testing hypotheses by observation, not by experiment. In more modern times, we can do some experiments... but nobody can create an experiment to evolve a monkey into a man... it would take way too long and involve far too many organisms. So not all science is a result of hypothesis -> experiment -> attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

A thought provoking article. Most polls are designed to influence people, not merely gauge public opinion on an issue. A ‘push poll’ is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter prospective voters' views/beliefs under the guise of conducting an opinion poll. The pollster asks leading questions or suggestive questions that “push” the interviewee towards adopting a positive or negative response to an issue. In order to conceal the manipulation the interviewee will typically manipulate the interviewee before asking a seemingly neutral question.

Thus a pro-abortion pollster would let the interviewee know they are pro-abortion and think anti-abortionists are immoral while informing them about main the arguments in favor of abortion (none against) and then ask a seemingly neutral question: “Do you support abortion?” The question is not neutral of course as most people are naturally averse to saying “no” to a proposition and would rather say “yes”. How do you know if interviewees were subject to such manipulation? You do not, but must assume they were. You must treat all polls as propaganda designed to service the interests of the people who pay for them and be willing counter your opponent’s rigged polls with your own.

If you think the latter course of action is “immoral” or "dishonest" then perhaps you might like to condemn the Allies for misleading the Nazis about where the D-Day landings were.

This article reveals the extremist mindset of some politicians. Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) famously wrote in his 1821 play Alamansor: "where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well"; which turned out to be all too true in relation to the burning of Jewish books by the Nazis who subsequently burnt Jews after gassing them. Likewise, the burning of guns by power hungry politicians represents their desire to murder people who threaten their power by possessing guns.

This is nothing new. Probably 80% or more of what the press calls "deportations" are voluntary returns (V/Rs). True deportation is a court proceeding and formally deporting every alien caught at the border would clog the Immigration Court system so that people under deportation proceedings would be either incarcerated or out on bond for years awaiting a hearing. Deportations also cost money, and the alien pays for his own V/R. Formally deporting every apprehended alien would financially destroy the DHS. V/R is the only practical way to remove a large number of illegal aliens from the United States. In some jurisdictions, a certain number of V/Rs automatically makes the alien eligible for a formal deportation hearing.

...continuing.
To directly speak of 'fake news', UFO reports and the like defies credibility. But what of 'Russian influence of USA elections'? Of the latter, we would necessarily rely on the 4th estate. And who is to say if they are less than trustworthy?

Well, by their fruits ye should know them and it is be constant monitoring with a somewhat jaded eye which is the answer. Well, those things plus a memory. How soon do most people forget the news of even one year ago? Such is to the benefit of the MSM which seeks a bombardment of constant 'breaking news' and with an ever shorter new cycle.

Why, in this manufactured environment, PT Barnum would have a field day! That the MSM has lost control via the internet blogs but mostly due their own duplicity has to have wrought much hand wringing among them.

Hey, I know! Let's do what we do best, let's come up with something, oh I dunno, call it 'fake news' whereby we get to decide for the people what is trustworthy or not. Of course, by painting a picture that 'they' are fake, we get to win back the perception that we are trustworthy. For we are not them.

Sharyl Attkisson spoke of this at her address at the Richard Nixon library in March 2015.

To paraphrase, to avoid the pushback (from WH and government at large, and those in the media who are water bearers for the WH), the MSM has mostly deleted true investigative journalists in favor of those who parse through the webpages of Salon, Buzzfeed, etc so that they may pass on as news what they themselves have read. This is collusion.

Then there is the manipulation of social media (Twitter being most favored) where a handful of MSM-types will open multiple 'personas' per employee which then parrot each other and can seem to appear as a groundswell, a consensus whereby the general public is likely to adopt that perception.

A classic example; the all inclusive "ignorance of the law is no excuse" scenario. How is a lay citizen supposed to live up to that requirement, even though it is "modest" when compared to our current tax code, which is a monstrosity that has just kept having layers added to it, with layers made obsolete by subsequent layers not removed from the code. ( Although it seems SOME effort to "take out the trash" may have been made with AZ gun laws ) EVERYONE needs a lawyer now, even for everyday activity.

Answers:
Q1: It is not unreasonable, in fact, it is preferable. The objection comes from them with nefarious intent to effect unethical, immoral, perhaps criminal want to skew the election. An aside, Imagine the vociferous raging from those same persons if it were the 'other side' wanting to do same.

Q2: ditto

Q3: These people are the unthinking, uncaring, ignorant and uniformed (willfully so in most accounts) who have traded their liberties for the govt cheese. (They didn't intend to have actually ceded their liberties for they don't think that deeply. Too, those people continue to rally in their cry for their 'rights', In actuality, they intended to trade their responsibilities, yet unknowingly had relinquished the attendant liberties. Summarized, they are the useful idiots.)

Q5: Yes, the elections within a sovereign state are limited solely to the lawful citizens of that state. I would go a step further and require proof of a lasting allegiance to that sovereignty and assimilation into the culture of the same.

Q6: No. It matters why they are otherwise ineligible. Of course, here is the possibility of one who has truthfully proclaimed (and demonstrated) the aforementioned allegiance yet may be deemed ineligible due to incarceration or something along that line. But a civil society should have and uphold a code of conduct for lacking that the binds of society should quickly unravel. In that case, to what would one declare their allegiance? Therefore, anyone who is deemed ineligible should be denied a vote. That is, whether one is ineligible or whatever the reason, or is not in allegiance to, or is foreign to, the sovereign state is unsuitable to cast a vote for office of that state.

An aside: unqualified is a synonym of unsuitable. Therefore, the argument could be should there be a qualifying of the constituency? My answer is yes. It has been tried before such as in the case of land ownership but that was rendered unlawful. I suppose I will leave this as a kind of overhead question. However, I can think of certain tests which would pass muster. To speak of that would require more words than allowed here.

This is most certainly the way to precipitate the Second American Civil War (ACWII).

As the government tries to outlaw ammunition or additional firearms it does risk the few rising up and shooting the jack-booted thugs who try to enforce it and then the politicians who enacted it and the judges who uphold it.

We liven perilous times and the Democrats will go down in history as the party that provoked it unnecessarily.

Awesome synopsis article. Alan I love the way you write regarding second amendment issues. You always write in away that is so clear and gets to the heart of the subject.You bring such sound reasoning to the issue. It seems like when I read your articles I cry out "that's exactly right"
Keep it up.

It also says that, if you appeal, the appeals court will affirm the denial "based on a reasonable suspicion ... of conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism..."

In other words, nothing even remotely resembling a burden of proof here. Not even the weak "preponderance of evidence" standard.

The other problem is the "Selectee list" which appears to be a secret list operating by secret rules. The bill certainly doesn't say what the rules are, only that the "standard as of June 16, 2016" is to apply. Whatever that may mean.

It seems a shame that those born to American parents serving their country overseas, say, in the military or as Ambassadorial staff loose their eligibility to be elected president because of their parents service to the country.

I guess it should be made a requirement that the parents of any such birth be provided transportation to the US, and for their return, for the birth of their child at no expense in dollars or "leave" time to them

My Friends and Fellow Patriots. Alan Korwin, is a writer and someone I trust to spell it out...what just happened with New Gun Laws announced by Obama. Please take time to read the facts, the truths and the lies embedded in the Obama Speech "A crowd pleaser for the left, and the ignorant" Alan and I met a few years back at a National Trade Show in Las Vegas and I truly trust his take on the action upon our 2nd Amendment and Constitution Rights. Please READ and SHARE...Please

Thanks for giving us the straight of it, Alan. I knew we could count on you. I've shared it on Facebook for both my intelligent friends/family and also those too misinformed, misguided, or just plain clueless to know the 2nd Amendment is the last defense against tyranny.

To Bill S., so you're a proponent of shooting-on-sight anyone seen in mere possession of an "assault rifle" in public? So you'd shoot all of the open-carry demonstrators on sight if you ever happened to drive by one of those demonstrations?

As far as why I choose to carry a concealed weapon but not bother with a bulletproof vest, maybe it's because I don't consider myself to be nearly as much of a live target as a uniformed police officer seems to be lately.

I'm also concerned enough about a house fire that I have a fire extinguisher in the house, but I don't wear a Simpson seven-layer fire suit to bed every night.

Mr. Bill S., even though you apparently don't carry a concealed weapon on your person, don't you still wear a bulletproof vest? If not, why not? Are you actually that unconcerned about your personal safety? There are dangerous people out there with guns! - Mark C.

El Prez won't use the phrase Islamic Radicals" because it's not accurate. These are Islamic Fundamentalists we're dealing with trying to pursue the purest form of Islam they know based on the life and times of their prophet who was after all a horse barbarian.

The difference between Big Mo and any of the others from Alexander to Genghis Khan is that Mo made his empire stick by imposing his religion on the conquered. Convert or Die is very persuasive.

"The real power rests with 100 million gun owners, who vote, contribute, demonstrate, and are armed."

That is EXACTLY why the left is so intent on disarming everyone but their enforcers. It's so much easier to control, and eventually eliminate defenselesss populations. (And historically elimination has always been the ultimate outcome. Read below and follow the link to read how leftist governments murdered about 262 million of their citizens in the 20th century alone ... After first disarming them.)

No matter what additional unconstitutional infringements of our gun rights are passed - bans, registration, and/or any/all other infringements of our rights, I will not comply. Millions more will not comply.

To quote a few of their heroes, with explanatory comments in ( ):

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao
(They revere Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.”)

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. … The only real power comes out of a long rifle. … Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. … We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? … The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” — Joseph Stalin

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that kall conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler
(These psychopathic sociopaths in our government – and THEY ARE PRECISELY THAT, never make the mistake of doubting it – believe that they are anointed to be our rulers and that we are the equivalent of Hitler’s “subject races.” And we know what they did to "them.")

Obama's DHS Gestapo and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.8 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 5 times or more - enough for over 20 years of warfare here in the homeland at the intensity of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict - ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law, and have just ordered more and an additional 7,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC "personal defense" weapons. They have also recently purchased almost 3,000 armored fighting vehicles for use on the streets of America, in addition to the many already obtained from DoD. How does anyone with the capability of rational thought escape the conclusion that the ruling class is preparing for a war on its own citizens?

Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Durban, and their whole gang are tyrant wannabes. To them, anyone who does, or might, oppose their control over every aspect of our lives, is “a criminal” because they said so.

Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered millions
Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered millions
Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.
The list goes on … about 262 MILLION people were murdered BY THEIR OWN (leftist, totalitarian) GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments to disarm them. See: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you. Don’t tell me, “It can’t happen here in America.” To borrow a quote from Mike Vanderboegh, “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.”

The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The ruling class thinks they can ignore (and will quite enthusiastically gut) the Constitution. We have allowed them to accumulate too much illegitimate power and organize their agencies too well to trust them with the Constitution. They must be forced, by any means required in the end, to obey it or be removed from power.

“A tyrannical rule cannot in any reasonable construction be accounted lawful, and therefore the disturbance of such a government cannot be esteemed seditious, much less traitorous.” – Thomas Aquinas

Alan, I personally feel that the NRA is asleep at the switch!!! They are doing nothing of a visible, prime time nature to combat the hysteria systematically injected by the lamestream media!! They could do prime time events with thoughtful people such as yourself, John Lott Jr. They could interview people who have had to defend themselves!!They could speak to the issue of violence in England andd Australia in the wake of gun control!! Speak to the issue of the low crime rate in Sweden, if indeed that still holds water" The NRA has a lot of money and I'm betting that Wayne LaPierre doesn't drive a car as small as mine or as old!!

Here again, the Obama administration attempt so trick the citizens of this country to further their liberal agenda. Lying and foolery are their tactics. Are we going to just sit still for this nonsense? I sure hope not!

Unless there is an enforced requirement that the records of passed background checks is regularly destroyed, over time these transaction records will become a de facto registration database. Unacceptable.
And what of the failed background checks, i.e. a felon or illegal alien trying to buy. Will there be a requirement that these are prosecuted?

I am sure that rational people will agree that guns are not the problem. People and kids are hammered with guns in every way, games, TV, movies, and, yes the news. It's a kind of brain washing where guns are on everyones mind. With kids, they don't realize the finality of the gunshot because of games, TV, ect. and it only takes someone who is a little off to do a horrendous thing. What we need is less exposure to guns for everyone. If we reduce the guns on TV,games, and the movies we will gain more than banning assault weapons for example.

Looking back at public shootins, Taco Bell, subway, Aurera, the shooter are cowards. They choose places of public garther of people the most likely don't carry firearms. The chance resistance or returned fire and killng themself is zero. The fact that some self inflict, is a reacting to the raw damage they've done. If more of the law abiding public had weapons of protection, crimes with gun by criminals wont change, but there would be alot less dead children. Obviously, first grade teacher have to be first to be armed. Our society is doomed. Criminal will always have guns, controls will just restrict people needing protection from getting it.

This is a typical gun grabber's bald faced lie. Crime in Australia has increased steadily along similar patterns as English and American crime, and since the ban, Australia had the year with the highest percentage of murders committed with firearms in 2006--long after the ban. There is no correlation between gun grabbing and decreasing crime, on the other hand... Chicago, Detroit, New York, DC, Mexico, the Middle East and Nazi Germany all show what happens to disarmed populations. Nor does strict gun control prevent mass shootings (Norway). Gun grabbing protects only one group--a government intending tyrrany, and Americans need to take a good, hard look at our government. Then go back and read what our founding fathers warned us about.

For all intents and purpose - "there really are NO guns on the streets in Australia" following a horrendous massacre of tourists visiting an old colomial convict gaol site in Tasmania in the late 90s. The prime minister of the day, John Howard, elected to ban ALL guns, and while this was a great shock to those in the rural communities of this vast, underpopulated, country, it has reduced the number of gun related crimes and murders very considereably. We are only a pop of 22 million and it was hard enough going for that few, God only knows how you would ever get a pop of 350 million to surrender every gun in the land? But lets face it after the Newtown CT tragedy where the most innocent of human beings were wilfully slayen by a mad-man, America is GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING - NOW.

It's essentially a control issue on both sides of the argument. If law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, they're viewed as a threat to any government which seeks total control over its peoples.If criminals own guns, they have the unilateral ability to control us, i.e., shoot, kill, rob. Cell phones, doctors, hospitals,and cars do not 'control us' in the same sense, hence they are not legitimate targets for comparison purposes.

Guns are a threat to the ruling class in a dictatorial state. The 2ND was designed to allow the people when and if necessary to be able to protect themselves from the Federal Goverment (ours)should efforts be made to install a dictatorial state with committee or dictator as a ruler in lieu of Congress and a President. The gun laws should reflect protection by and for the citizens of this Nation not disarming of the citizens. Even in totalitarian states criminals, sometimes representatives of the governments, gun possession is possible outside the law and the citizens are left to their own non gun devices to protect themselves as most police agencies are not capable of protecting all the people. Political power is stymied by voters who not only can vote but can theoretically defend themselves as well as their form of government from those who would take away the Constitution or change it "be it illegally" to allow tyrant to take over say as Hitler did after being legally elected.

I'm so glad to see this, was here to find and post the genocide chart an effective tool in my opinion, it helps plant the hardiest seeds! I've been telling people Dec 15 is Bill of Rights day and to go to jpfo.org to learn more about ideas to celebrate. Now, I will just post it everywhere I can. Thanks to all of you for the hard work to help get the truth out to the masses. Blessings all.

What is the number 1 and number 2 killers of people in cars while driving?
1) Hand held communication items, as iPhones, iPods, Cell phones.
2) ALCOHOL

So are we to ban these? They definitely kill more people than guns in the many thousands of percent in comparison.

Hospitals are getting up there too. Infections! With an average of 5% +/- .05%, with medical resistant infections killing more people everyday, it will only take a short period of time when this issue is worse than the driving under the influence of a smart phone. Mark my words.

Let me add: the reason the RNC did not talk about guns -- and the reason the DNC, to the best of my knowledge, has had little to say about them so far either -- is because neither side has anything to gain from doing so. Gun owners see the tide turning increasingly in their favor, and are quiet about it; gun-control advocates seem to have learned (finally) that screaming about gun control in an election year loses votes.

We've made remarkable progress. In just a few years, a decades-long anti-gun trend was reversed; now a majority of States are shall-issue, with only a handful (including my own, regrettably) choosing to stand in the way of law-abiding citizens defending themselves.

There are people who still Just Don't Get It; there are people who are afraid of guns because Guns Are Scary; and there are politicians, elected and otherwise, more than willing to use gun control to keep the peons at bay. Here's hoping that articles like this one will help to convince those willing to listen.

And, as was written recently on americanthinker.com -- if you can take a liberal shooting between now and election day, do so! Let them learn about safe gun handling, and have fun with a long-distance paper puncher. Every little bit helps.

Please allow me to add a point or two that might be of interest to your intended audience.

The two American cities with the most extreme gun control are Washington DC and Chicago. In 2010 Washington DC had twenty seven times more murders than the slightly larger city of El Paso, TX.

El Paso is a good comparison because it is similar in size and the level of minority population to DC. It is also similarly located on the edge of the nation. In Texas, every responsible adult citizen can carry a loaded concealed handgun as they go about their day. Twenty seven times more murders is a substantial amount. The murder rate for Chicago was nineteen times higher for the same year. It is reasonable to believe El Paso has a much higher rate of an armed citizenry than DC or Chicago but the murder rate is much, much lower. Ask yourself why. Until you do, you have no right to demand the rest of the nation's citizens disarm.

Sources: FBI Crime Report for murder stats and US Census Bureau for population.

Right on point. I, too, was a working journalist for 15 years, and have watched the ignorance play out in many ugly ways in may ugly stories. Journalists are just a bunch of well-meaning people who can't do much else but be led around by conventional wisdom and personal bias.

I submit that only those citizens who have received no government consideration of any kind since the last election may vote in the next election.

To allow otherwise would be to permit a conflict of interest, for the simple reason that someone who is receiving special consideration from government will likely vote for whatever party that promises to perpetuate that individual's entitlement, regardless of whether or not the added burden on the national debt will harm the country.

Such a rule would effectively eliminate anyone who received any entitlement, subsidy or credit from voting in the next election.

That rule may very well result in awfully people actually being eligible to vote, but to everyone else I can only say, "Hey, that's a choice you made!"

I just looked at the comments generated by your article over at World News Daily. It is what I would expect from readers of a low-brow conspiracy blog like this to an article on why Jews hate guns. Great stuff like "typical Getto Jew mentality"; because they haven't accepted Jesus, they are cowards and sheep by nature. You can't be surprised when you associate yourself with this gutter-level of civil discourse and you tee up Judaism for the predictable bigoted responses.

About the Author

Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.